nikki2200 4 Posted October 4, 2010 Tony Dungy: No team looks consistent this year except maybe the Kansas City Chiefs, but this is good for the league. What? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuaveSr 0 Posted October 4, 2010 Tony Dungy: No team looks consistent this year except maybe the Kansas City Chiefs, but this is good for the league. What? I am not a fan of them, but has Tony not watched the Jets because of the cursing. He may want to see what he has been missing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted October 4, 2010 I am not a fan of them, but has Tony not watched the Jets because of the cursing. He may want to see what he has been missing. I'm all about the Jets this year. They've always been my AFC team. And yea... they're looking pretty schweet. I was more confuzzled by Tony's statement that all the NFL teams suck a$$ but this is somehow good for the NFL? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuaveSr 0 Posted October 4, 2010 I'm all about the Jets this year. They've always been my AFC team. And yea... they're looking pretty schweet. I was more confuzzled by Tony's statement that all the NFL teams suck a$$ but this is somehow good for the NFL? It's horrible for the NFL. Just because it is football, non-gambling people will not watch unless they think it is quality. See USFL, XFL, UFL, etc. More games like this Sunday night game and SNF ratings will tank. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted October 4, 2010 someone has to win that putrid division. I don't think the division is putrid.... You have the Packers who will probably finish 13-3 and contend for the Super Bowl You have the Vikings who will probably finish 9-7/10-6 And you have the Bears who surely finish at least 8-8/9-7 Yes, you have the crapass Lions who will surely finish 2-14...... but, overall, that makes for a winning division.... that's far from putrid Plus, I think when outsiders judge this division they give us a break because they know that Detroit has been so mind-numblingly and odds-beating putrid for 50 straight years and they kind of feel sorry for us to have to be associated with them for five decades HTH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrJ 0 Posted October 4, 2010 That really sucked. With how bad this OL is, I think they should put Angelo back there at QB for a few plays. Then when he gets concussed, they can put Lovie back there for a few plays. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Puddleglum 0 Posted October 4, 2010 You have the Packers who will probably finish 13-3 and contend for the Super Bowl You have the Vikings who will probably finish 9-7/10-6 And you have the Bears who surely finish at least 8-8/9-7 Yes, you have the crapass Lions who will surely finish 2-14...... but, overall, that makes for a winning division.... that's far from putrid I appreciate your enthusiasm, but based on how inconsistent the Packers have been so far, I would be happy with 11-5 or even 10-6. I think the entire NFL is hard to gauge right now, but one thing I come back to is that last year there was a nearly perfect correlation between QB play and which teams made the playoffs, which makes me feel pretty good about the Packer's chances this year. It's also nice to see the number "5" under the sack column for Rodgers 1/4 of the way through the season. If any team can make a run with sub-par QB play it's the Vikings, but so far Brett hasn't even managed to be sub-par. Cutler was looking serviceable until last night but you have to be concerned about the long-term health of any QB playing in a Martz offense. That is nothing new though. Shaun hill doesn't seem to be much of a dropoff from Stafford at this point, but honestly neither are reliable. Overall I think you have the final order of this division right, but I don't think the Packers are going to wind up more than 1 game up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted October 4, 2010 I actually think that the Packers are missing three major things: 1) A galvanizing coach - a firebrand leader. I think McCarthy is far too milquetoast, and I do not like his coaching style/play calling with the lead. He may be the worst "playing with the lead" coach in the NFL. He's always had this problem, IMO. 2) A galvanizing personality on each side of the ball who relishes the vocal leadership role. I think Clay Matthews could acquire that role on Defense - if he wants it - but, so far, he's simply been content accepting accolades for great play. I think he needs to go to another level, ala Ray Lewis of the Ravens. His personality fits that sort of growth pattern. 2a) The same personality on Offense. I think that Rodgers should take that role, but I do not know if he possesses the personality. He's a great QB, but he seems too mellow to me right now. I think that JerMichael Finley has the personality most likely to take on that role, and it may work, but it's a natural position for QB. I think Peyton Manning's personality is similar to Rodgers, but Peyton has taken that extra step. I'd like to see Rodgers do the same. I'm going to see Rodgers in a couple of weeks - and I'm going to bring this up - but I think it's hard to just tell someone to go out and do this sort of thing. It may only work if they go out and do it themselves. We'll see. They're close, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roroco 75 Posted October 4, 2010 I actually think that the Packers are missing three major things: 1) A galvanizing coach - a firebrand leader. I think McCarthy is far too milquetoast, and I do not like his coaching style/play calling with the lead. He may be the worst "playing with the lead" coach in the NFL. He's always had this problem, IMO. 2) A galvanizing personality on each side of the ball who relishes the vocal leadership role. I think Clay Matthews could acquire that role on Defense - if he wants it - but, so far, he's simply been content accepting accolades for great play. I think he needs to go to another level, ala Ray Lewis of the Ravens. His personality fits that sort of growth pattern. 2a) The same personality on Offense. I think that Rodgers should take that role, but I do not know if he possesses the personality. He's a great QB, but he seems too mellow to me right now. I think that JerMichael Finley has the personality most likely to take on that role, and it may work, but it's a natural position for QB. I think Peyton Manning's personality is similar to Rodgers, but Peyton has taken that extra step. I'd like to see Rodgers do the same. I'm going to see Rodgers in a couple of weeks - and I'm going to bring this up - but I think it's hard to just tell someone to go out and do this sort of thing. It may only work if they go out and do it themselves. We'll see. They're close, though. You mention two holes and then refer to the two personalities that fit those requirements? What the Packers need is help with their DBs, o-line, and a RB that can run the ball when they need to kill time. They can score a ton of points and cause turnovers... They just can't cause the game to slow down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted October 4, 2010 Cutler was looking serviceable until last night Cutler had five mind-numbingly awful passes -- essentially 5 INTs -- against the Packers on MNF.... On 2 he was bailed out by the refs and two the Packers just flat-out dropped.... I don't think he's very good... he's like a badFavreLite Now that he's been slammed to the ground repeatedly and concussed, his feet will only get happier.... That O-line is awful Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted October 4, 2010 You mention two holes and then refer to the two personalities that fit those requirements? I'm not sure what you're trying to say: I'm speaking of holes in leadership, and players who have the potential to fill those holes. I'm saying that the players I named have not stepped forward to assume those vocal - and critical - roles. What the Packers need is help with their DBs, o-line, and a RB that can run the ball when they need to kill time. They can score a ton of points and cause turnovers... They just can't cause the game to slow down. I haven't addressed those things that they cannot do anything about this year (with the possible exception of Nance, who I hope is getting up to speed quickly enough on the playbook, and may fill the role - as Grant did, years ago). I'm pointing out that vocal leadership on the field can make players on the team better. This year. Our DBs, btw, are quite good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted October 4, 2010 I'm not sure what you're trying to say: I'm speaking of holes in leadership, and players who have the potential to fill those holes. I'm saying that the players I named have not stepped forward to assume those vocal - and critical - roles. I haven't addressed those things that they cannot do anything about this year (with the possible exception of Nance, who I hope is getting up to speed quickly enough on the playbook, and may fill the role - as Grant did, years ago). I'm pointing out that vocal leadership on the field can make players on the team better. This year. Our DBs, btw, are quite good. i take you're now re-thinking your "rodgers for mvp" and "packers in the super bowl" talk. good. being honest with yourself is the first step to recovery. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roroco 75 Posted October 4, 2010 i take you're now re-thinking your "rodgers for mvp" and "packers in the super bowl" talk. good. being honest with yourself is the first step to recovery. The Packers still look like the best team in the NFC. Who else would you put above them right now? And Rodgers is one of the top QBs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IMMensaMind 462 Posted October 4, 2010 i take you're now re-thinking your "rodgers for mvp" and "packers in the super bowl" talk. good. being honest with yourself is the first step to recovery. Rodgers is - of course - a bonafide MVP candidate, and Green Bay is a bonafide SuperBowl contender. In short, your idiotic screed is...idiotic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted October 4, 2010 Sweetness? Sweetness? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted October 4, 2010 Sweetness? Sweetness? 10 sacks=10 sacks=10 sacks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted October 4, 2010 Rodgers is - of course - a bonafide MVP candidate, and Green Bay is a bonafide SuperBowl contender. In short, your idiotic screed is...idiotic. a team like the lions lights up that putrid d for almost 500 yards and you're still talking this shiat? shoo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roroco 75 Posted October 4, 2010 a team like the lions lights up that putrid d for almost 500 yards and you're still talking this shiat? shoo. Name a better team Swamp... We're waiting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
